Further remarks on the treatment of uterine cancer, specially by gastric juice : with an appendix / by C.H.F. Routh.

  • Routh, C. H. F. (Charles Henry Felix), 1822-1909.
Date:
1873
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Further remarks on the treatment of uterine cancer, specially by gastric juice : with an appendix / by C.H.F. Routh. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    5/18
    ON THE TREATMENT OF UTERINE CANCER, SPECIALLY BY GASTRIC JUICE. WITH AN APPENDIX. In the year 1867 I published in the London Obstetrical Trans- actions an account of two cases of epithelial cancer of the cervix uteri and its cavity treated by a new mode. This was by a strong solution of bromine, as suggested to me by my colleague, Dr. Wynn Williams. In July, 1869, I read in the Midwifery Section at the Annual Meeting of the British Medical Association in Leeds, another paper on certain forms of uterine cancer. In this paper I recorded thirteen cases. Out of six cases of fibro-carcinoma only one re- covered. In three cases of soft cancer one.was cured. Two other cases of epithelioma were cured. In two cases of corroding ulcer of the womb, one case was cured. Lastly, in two cases of malignant ulceration, one recovered. Thus, out of fifteen cases of all kinds, six were cured. I have reason to believe that all these cases continue well unto this day. In June, 1870, Dr. Wynn Williams narrated to the Obstetrical Society of London seven cases of cure by injection and application of bromine locally. These cases included two of medullary cancer, two of epithelial, one of colloid, and two of malignant disease after previous operation. These several reports prove at least that some cases of cancer are curable by the bromine treatment. It has been objected by disbelievers that many of these cases were not genuine cancer. The only reply that can be made to such assertions is, that observers can only make statements and relate cases according to the skill and powers of diagnosis they possess, and the honest propounder of his own observed facts, is surely quite as well and better circumstanced than an objector who has never seen the cases and cannot prove or disprove their accuracy.